Inverting The Pyramid 2009
Inverting The Pyramid 2009
TE i RT A RY SE CO N D A RY PR iM A RY
ARACY
The Allen Consulting Group Pty Ltd ACN 007 061 930, ABN 52 007 061 930
Me lb o u r n e Level 9, 60 Collins St Melbourne VIC 3000 Telephone: (61-3) 8650 6000 Facsimile: (61-3) 9654 6363
Syd n e y Level 12, 210 George St Sydney NSW 2000 Telephone: (61-2) 8272 5100 Facsimile: (61-2) 9247 2455
Ca n b e r r a Empire Chambers, Level 2, 113 University Ave Canberra ACT 2600 GPO Box 418, Canberra ACT 2601 Telephone: (61-2) 6204 6500 Facsimile: (61-2) 6230 0149
Pe r t h Level 21, 44 St Georges Tce Perth WA 6000 Telephone: (61-8) 6211 0900 Facsimile: (61-8) 9221 9922
Disclaimer: While the Allen Consulting Group endeavours to provide reliable analysis and believes the material it presents is accurate, it will not be liable for any claim by any party acting on such information. The Allen Consulting Group 2008
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth for funding the research for this report. The authors wish to thank the project reference group members who provided valuable input and advice throughout the project: Dr Fiona Arney Australian Centre for Child Protection, University of South Australia Mr Brian Babington Families Australia Ms Gillian Calvert Commissioner for Children and Young People, NSW Dr Judy Cashmore University of New South Wales Dr Lance Emerson Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY) Dr Maria Harries University of Western Australia Dr Nathan Harris Regulatory Institutions Network, Australian National University Dr Daryl Higgins Australian Institute for Family Studies Dr Geoff Holloway Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY) Ms Lone Keast Department of Child Safety, Queensland Dr Stephen Lake Department of Child Safety, Queensland Ms Kathryn Mandla Department of Child Safety, Queensland Ms Fiona Smart Department of Families and Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Dr Clare Tilbury Griffith University The authors also wish to thank staff from state and territory departments who provided input into the stocktakes and to the many people from around Australia who provided information and ideas through the consultation process. The final draft of this report was reviewed by Professor Dorothy Scott, Foundation Chair of Child Protection and the Director of the Australian Centre for Child Protection at the University of South Australia, and Associate Professor Maria Harries, University of Western Australia. We are grateful for their comments and guidance. This report has been prepared under the auspices of ARACY, which holds copyright and responsibility for this publication.
ii
Contents
Executive summary
Introduction Main summary points Next steps
vi
vi ix xv
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Context 1.2 The change goal the public health model 1.3 This project 1.4 Acknowledgement of previous work
2
2 3 6 7
Chapter 2
9
9 9 11 13 13
Chapter 3
17
Project methodology
3.1 Introduction 3.2 Project phases 3.3 System boundaries
17
17 17 20
Chapter 4
23
23
23 23 26
Chapter 5
27
27
27 27 29 33
iii
Chapter 6
38
38
38 38 42 46
Chapter 7
49
System regulations
7.1 Introduction 7.2 System rules: legislation and accountability arrangements 7.3 System practices: routines, processes and procedures
49
49 49 54
Chapter 8
60
60
60 60 65
Chapter 9
68
68
68
Chapter 10
70
70
70 73 78
Chapter 11
80
80
80 85 91
Chapter 12
94
94
94 96 100
Chapter 13
103
103
103 104 107 113
115 116
Appendix A
121
121 121
121 121 122 122
123
123 123 124
Appendix B
126
126
Executive summary
Introduction
Current systems for protecting children in Australia are failing in their primary objective: to protect children. Substantiation rates have increased significantly across Australia in the past decade although the rates in Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia have remained relatively stable (AIHW 2008). Indigenous children are more than five times more likely to be the subject of a substantiation (AIHW 2008). In addition, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reports that the number of children in out-of-home care in Australia has increased by 102 per cent in the last 10 years. For Indigenous children, the national average in outof-home care was substantially higher than the non-Indigenous population (AIHW 2008). The statutory child protection system is overburdened with notifications of alleged child abuse and neglect almost tripling nationally between 19992000 and 200607 (AIHW 2008). This represents huge demand on the resources within child protection agencies to assess and investigate these reports, and more broadly on government resources. Further, the growth in child protection services is unsustainable from a system capacity perspective regardless of available resources for example, the numbers of children in care is escalating whilst the number of foster carers is declining due to ageing (Wood 2008). In addition, persistent workforce shortages for child protection workers evident now will only be exacerbated by increased notifications. There is widespread consensus that the best way to protect children is to prevent child abuse and neglect from happening in the first place. There is also widespread consensus that this requires a robust primary and secondary system for protecting children that provides families with the assistance they need before they come into contact with the statutory child protection system.
Background
The Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY) commissioned the Allen Consulting Group to develop a report based on national and international experience of best practice in organisational change strategies and processes for protecting children, while reducing demand on tertiary child protection services. ARACY anticipates that by advancing preventive strategies, the report will ultimately assist in reducing the incidence of child abuse and neglect in Australia (ARACY 2008).
P roject objectives
The report has two key objectives: to describe the current service systems for protecting children across Australia in terms of primary, secondary and tertiary prevention addressed in Appendix C of this report to identify the organisational strategies and processes that could lead to more effective approaches to prevent child abuse and neglect addressed in Parts II and III of this report through the systems analysis and the case studies of systems change.
vi
M ethodology
The methodology for this project involved five phases:
Three case studies were selected for detailed analysis in this phase of the project. Each of the chosen case studies used collaborative strategies and demonstrated a movement towards a preventive model for protecting children. The case studies include one from Australia (every child every chance and Child FIRST from Victoria), the UK (Every Child Matters), and the US (Community Partnerships for Protecting Children). In addition, key sources from the academic literature were reviewed, which informed the analysis throughout the report.
vii
These strategic thinkers provided insights and observations into the functioning of the systems for protecting children as a whole including the interactions between the various systems. In addition, the Allen Consulting Group conducted a limited number of consultations with key providers of services to children and families. These consultations particularly focused on government and non-government providers of childrens and family support services, namely: child and family health services education services family support services statutory child protection services.
Consultations with providers were in no way intended to comprehensively cover all of the services involved in preventing child abuse and neglect. They were designed to elicit broad insights at the operational level on system enablers and barriers to a preventive model for protecting children.
A framework for systems analysis was adopted from the work of Foster-Fishman et al. (2007) on organisational and systems change in the human services. This framework assisted in structuring the analysis and providing a firm foundation from which to identify levers for change.
viii
Primary (or universal) interventions are strategies that target whole communities or all families in order to build public resources and attend to the social factors that contribute to child maltreatment. Secondary or targeted interventions target vulnerable families or children and young people who are at risk of child maltreatment that is, those with special needs or those who are in need of greater support. Tertiary interventions target families in which child maltreatment has already occurred. Tertiary interventions seek to reduce the long-term implications of maltreatment and to prevent maltreatment recurring. They include statutory care and protection services (Holzer 2007).
ix
Clearly, policy change and systems change are interlinked as the system will need to reflect the policy, and the policy will need to reflect the system realities and constraints. A diagram representing the conceptual framework for this project is in Figure 1.
Figure 1
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Our conceptual framework also assumes agreement that the best way to protect children is to prevent child abuse and neglect from occurring in the first place the public health model is our change goal. However, there may be a range of policy options for achieving this goal.
child protection systems should comprise integrated universal, secondary and tertiary services, with universal services comprising the greater proportion. They should be delivered by a mixture of the non-government sector and state agencies, with DoCS being a provider of last resort. Wood 2008, p. v
This project has identified a number of key elements required to move the system to a more preventive focus. These key elements include: articulation of a shared vision building a supportive culture integrated governance arrangements legislative support.
The findings from this project indicate that in order achieve the change goal significant cultural change would need to occur within organisations. The concept of shared responsibility for protecting children needs to be translated into action through this cultural change. This requires consideration of which system players are best placed to deliver strategies some system players will need to step up whilst others may need to let go and transfer responsibility. xi
Stakeholders reported a number of mechanisms that were effective in building a collaborative culture between agencies and services. These are: liaison officers who are embedded in another agency and can reflect the values, practices, concerns and ideas of their home agency joint training between professionals training from child protection agencies to other professional groups that work with children and families to showcase their role and practices common assessment frameworks and integrated case management co-location and integrated services such as wraparound child and family centres which bring together a number of key services (including child protection officers in some cases).
In addition, building shared responsibility and overcoming a culture of risk aversion will require the development of shared responsibility for protecting children using integrated governance arrangements (discussed below). The media and political response to child protection crises also plays a significant role in shaping culture. Strong leadership can assist in providing responses that support the change goal, rather than erode it.
Integrated governance arrangements permit, support and facilitate cooperation and collaboration among different agencies. The concept of integrated governance incorporates an element of mutuality, as opposed to individual action. This is mutuality in terms of consultation as well as shared responsibility and accountability for policy and program development, planning, implementation and evaluation. Integrated governance is supported by structures and processes that encourage collaboration. The structures and relationships that are appropriate in a particular case should be determined by what is necessary to achieve the agreed shared vision, outcomes and objectives, taking into account the specific local conditions. That said, there are some elements that are consistently reported by stakeholders and in the literature as critical to integrated governance arrangements. These are: leadership funding and accountability arrangements.
xii
Legislative support
Legislative support may be required to give effect to collaborative relationships among the relevant government and non-government agencies. In consultation, there were differing views as to whether legislation would help or hinder the establishment of collaborative relationships for protecting children. Victorian stakeholders reported that legislation was key to implementing their Child FIRST reforms. The Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 incorporates child protection and community services for children into one Act and the role of secondary family support services is embedded in legislation. Victoria stakeholders reported that this provides assurances to the NGO sector of their role in protecting children. It also delivers a unifying legislative framework for protecting children that went beyond the tertiary system. The elements outlined above are not necessarily sequential, although several stakeholders suggested that a strategic framework is a necessary precursor to change. The elements also interact and overlap for example, culture is influenced by, and influences, the effectiveness of integrated governance arrangements. A detailed discussion of each of these elements is included in Part II and III of the report.
xiii
Table 1
LEVERS FOR CHANGE Elements that are incompatible with the change goal and need to be shifted Norms Values underpinning the statutory child protection process are not conducive to identifying families in need even with differential responses A culture of systemic risk aversion in protecting children needs to change to build shared responsibility and accountability among organisations Media coverage and the politicisation of child protection contributes in large part to the risk averse culture surrounding child protection The culture of mistrust between professional groups makes building shared responsibility and accountability difficult Resistance from some professional groups to accept that family support is part of their core business Elements that support the change goal that could be strengthened Values underpinning the universal and family support systems are compatible so change should be driven in these, subsystems but this would require some system players to step up (e.g. universal systems to accept the more complex cases and an expanded role) some system players to let go (e.g. statutory services relinquishing some control of family support services)
There is shared understanding of the problem but shared responsibility needs to be built. Shared understanding can be leveraged to build shared responsibility Broad sentiment of shared responsibility and a willingness to be part of the solution Strong commitment from some system members for an increased role in protecting children Australian Government commitment to play a role in the solution
Resources Weaker capacity (knowledge and skills) in some professional groups for an enhanced role Perception of lack of capacity in the NGO sector for an increased role in secondary prevention Skills and capacity for collaboration need to be built Information and data sharing arrangements Capacity for collaboration Poor relationships between NGOs and government in some states (culture, consultation and resourcing) Professional values and philosophies Resources available to the secondary system Inadequate coverage of universal services Regulations Mandatory reporting Privacy legislation Siloed funding and accountability arrangements Competitive tendering Referrals for support through tertiary system Power Fragmented governance and funding arrangements Lack of engagement with NGOs
Source: Allen Consulting Group.
Strong capacity (knowledge and skills) in some professional groups for an enhanced role NGO skills and expertise working in the community and a commitment for expansion of role in secondary prevention Formal commitment to interagency working Good (albeit mostly isolated) experiences of collaborative interagency working in most states and many models in implementation
Possible reallocation of resources from tertiary subsystem Overarching principles in policy and legislation Differential intake responses Broad stakeholder support for communitybased intake models or dual pathways
Models of formal integrated planning in place in all states and territories Proliferation of integrated service delivery models that require joint governance
xiv
Next steps
This report provides ARACY with a solid foundation to move forward with a systems change agenda for protecting children. However, as the future work progresses we believe that additional research should occur. Specifically further research is needed to explore: the broader family, community and societal influences (and strategies) that have a significant role to play in shifting to a preventive model for protecting children the appropriateness of the proposed systems change in relation to Indigenous children and families.
Following release of this report ARACY is planning to identify and consult with appropriate stakeholders able to implement a sustainable systems change for protecting children. This plan offers the opportunity to work with many provider groups including those consulted during this project and others involved in protecting children.
xv
Part 1
Introduction and background
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Context
Current systems for protecting children in Australia are failing in their primary objective: to protect children. Substantiation rates have increased significantly across Australia in the past decade although the rates in Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia have remained relatively stable (AIHW 2008). Indigenous children are more than five times more likely to be the subject of a substantiation (AIHW 2008). In addition, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reports that the number of children in out-of-home care in Australia has increased by 102 per cent in the last 10 years. Of note however is the wide variation between jurisdictions in the proportion of children in out-of-home care; Victoria has the lowest proportion and NSW the highest (AIHW 2008). For Indigenous children, the national average in out-of-home care was substantially higher than the nonIndigenous population (AIHW 2008). There is much debate about the extent to which these figures reflect changes in policies and processes, as well as increasing community awareness of child protection, rather than an actual increase in child abuse and neglect. In addition, definitions of child abuse and neglect have evolved over time and reflect cultural interpretations. The definition of what constitutes child abuse and neglect has broadened in the past ten years and this has translated to an increase in notifications and substantiations by widening the net (Cashmore 2001 in AIHW 2008). Further noted by the AIHW:
Each state and territory has its own legislation that provides a definition of in need of care and protection. In some states and territories, the definition in the legislation covers a wide range of factors that may lead to a child being considered in need of care and protection, such as truancy or homelessness. In other jurisdictions, the legislation defines the need for care and protection more narrowly to refer to situations where the child has been abandoned or where the childs parent(s) are unable to protect the child from significant harm. AIHW 2008, p. 35
Regardless of the extent of growth in child abuse and neglect, there is now significant evidence that engagement with the child protection system, and particularly being in out-of-home care, does not protect children from poor longterm outcomes. In fact, it appears that out-of-home care contributes to rather than protects from poor long-term outcomes for children, particularly where placements are not stable (Doyle 2007; Rubin et al. 2007). The statutory child protection system is also overburdened with notifications of alleged child abuse and neglect almost tripling nationally between 19992000 (107 134) and 200607 (309 517) (AIHW 2008). This represents huge demand on the resources within child protection agencies to assess and investigate these reports, and more broadly on government resources. Based on stakeholder consultations conducted for this project and submissions to inquiries such as the recent Special Commission of Inquiry into Child Protection Services in New South Wales (the Wood Inquiry), there is agreement building that the current system is not the most effective or efficient way to protect children.
Further, the growth in child protection services is unsustainable from a system capacity perspective regardless of available resources for example, the numbers of children in care is escalating whilst the number of foster carers is declining due to ageing (Wood 2008). In addition, persistent workforce shortages for child protection workers evident now will only be exacerbated by increased notifications. The nature of child abuse and neglect is also evolving. The majority of the reports that relate to parental and family incapacity rather than intentional or physical harm (AIHW 2008) and statutory child protection services may not be the appropriate response to these issues (DHS 2002). For example, the Wood Inquiry noted:
Most reports to DoCS concern domestic violence, psychological abuse, neglect, carer substance abuse, carer mental health and/or sexual abuse. There is little reliable research to guide effective interventions for children and young people who are neglected Wood 2008, p. ii
There is widespread consensus that the best way to protect children is to prevent child abuse and neglect from happening in the first place. There is also widespread consensus that this requires robust primary and secondary systems for protecting children that provides families with the assistance they need before they come into contact with the statutory child protection system.
1.2
The public health model provides a conceptual model which, if realised, would shift child protection systems to a more preventive and collaborative model by accessing three levels of prevention: primary, secondary and tertiary. Under a public health model, child protection interventions that aim to prevent the occurrence or re-occurrence of child abuse and neglect are classified into the three levels:
Secondary or targeted interventions target vulnerable families or children and young people who are at risk of child maltreatment that is, those with special needs or who are in need of greater support. Tertiary interventions target families in which child maltreatment has already occurred. Tertiary interventions seek to reduce the long-term implications of maltreatment and to prevent maltreatment recurring. They include statutory care and protection services (Holzer 2007).
The public health model definitions of primary, secondary and tertiary interventions can be used to classify child protection intervention services. The two defining factors are the target and timing for the services and the purpose of the services (Table 1.1).
Table 1.1
CLASSIFYING CHILD PROTECTION INTERVENTION SERVICES Child protection intervention services Primary Target and timing Purpose
Whole communities or all families before problems arise Families and/or children/young people at risk of maltreatment occurring Families and/or children/young people where maltreatment has occurred
To prevent child maltreatment through support and education To address risk factors, alleviate problems and prevent escalation, with a focus on early intervention To reduce long-term implications of maltreatment and prevent maltreatment re-occurring
Secondary
Tertiary
Although the public health model can be useful in characterising services, there are limitations with using the model that should be noted. First, some services may provide interventions at the primary, secondary and tertiary prevention levels, so distinctions between the levels are artificial in many cases. For example, a maternal and child health service may deliver health promotion activities to all families, work with parents with an identified risk factor such as those experiencing family violence, and may also actively treat serious neglect such as failure to thrive, which is a tertiary prevention strategy. Second, prevention strategies are broader than just services and can include community-wide measures such as social marketing campaigns, and policy contexts such as paid parental leave. The public health model uses a pyramid to describe how systems ideally should be weighted and provided for protecting children (Figure 1.1). The large lower part of the pyramid represents primary prevention strategies and services provided to all children and families, the middle part of the pyramid represents secondary prevention strategies for children and families who need more support than what the primary prevention strategies can offer them, and the smallest part at the top of the pyramid represents the tertiary prevention strategies which should be provided only to those few children and families who need intensive intervention. Under a public health model, statutory child protection services are just one component of the system for protecting children (Scott 1995).
Figure 1.1
Stakeholders reported that current systems for protecting children resemble an inverted pyramid, or an hourglass shape rather than the public health model pyramid. Figure 1.2 describes these deviations from the traditional public health model. As one senior government child protection officer noted in consultations for this project, we need to turn the system on its head. The statutory child protection system needs to live behind the secondary system and be accessed through that door.
Figure 1.2
There is consensus by the Australian, state and territory governments and community organisations in Australia of the need to reduce the burden on the tertiary end of the system and to enhance primary and secondary supports and services in line with the public health model. This was also a key finding of the recent Wood Inquiry the child protection system should comprise integrated universal, secondary and tertiary services, with universal services comprising the largest proportion (Wood 2008, p. v). 5
The figures above show that realising the public health model for protecting children represents a significant shift in the current system. But how can a shift to prevention be managed within and across service systems for protecting children? What organisational and systems change is required to achieve this goal? This project seeks to answer these questions.
1.3
This project
The Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY) has commissioned the Allen Consulting Group to develop a research report on Enhancing Systems for Protecting Children. The research report has two key objectives: to describe the current service systems for protecting children across Australia in terms of primary, secondary and tertiary prevention to identify the organisational strategies and processes that could lead to more effective approaches to prevent child abuse and neglect.
This project takes a systems-based approach to child protection by examining the ways that systems and organisations can collaborate to deliver the best outcomes for children. The report does not attempt to answer the question how do we prevent child abuse? in terms of evidence-based interventions. Instead it focuses on describing how to move to a collaborative system, which uses a public health model of primary, secondary and tertiary prevention to ultimately assist in reducing the prevalence of child abuse and neglect in Australia.
R eport structure
This report comprises four parts.
Part I Introduction
This part consists of three chapters: Chapter 1 (this chapter) provides background to the project and defines the change goal. Chapter 3 introduces the conceptual framework guiding the project. Chapter 4 provides an overview of the project methodology including an overview of the project phases and a discussion on system boundaries.
Each case study ends with concluding comments regarding the applicability of the case to the Australian context.
Part IV Conclusions
Part IV outlines a model for systems change that brings together findings from the system analysis and identifies levers for change within the system. The summary also includes key lessons learned from the national and international case studies in the Australian context.
Appendix C Stocktakes
The appendix includes the stocktakes of service systems for protecting children in each state and territory. There is also a discussion of the limitations inherent in the stocktakes.
1.4
There has been a tremendous amount of work done in the past several years related to shifting the focus of child protection towards prevention. This report draws on and has been influenced by that work. The following reports/papers have been particularly helpful in describing the current state of child protection systems in Australia and the systems change process needed to meet the goal of preventing child abuse and neglect:
Protecting Children the Child Protection Outcomes Project, Final Report for
the Victorian Department of Human Services (Allen Consulting Group 2003).
Child abuse and neglect is it time for a public health approach? (ODonnell
et al. 2008).
A national approach for child protection project report for the Community and Disability Services Ministers Advisory Council (Bromfield and Holzer
2008).
Putting the system back into systems change: a framework for understanding and changing organisational and community systems (Foster-Fishman et al.
2007).
Chapter 2
Our overarching perspective is that child protection is a wicked problem in its nature and would respond best to approaches that are appropriate for these highly complex problems collaborative approaches. We argue that current approaches are largely authoritative, rather than collaborative and that systems change is required to overcome barriers to collaboration. We then draw on systems change models and public sector management literature on collaborative or joined-up approaches to establish a framework for analysing the root causes of current system problems and to identify levers for systems change. We acknowledge that systems change to advance collaborative strategies will not alone solve this wicked problem. New and systematic ways of thinking about the problem to identify solutions and drive policy change and the development of evidence-based programs and interventions is also required. While these issues are beyond the scope of this project, our approach argues that collaboration will enhance the policy-making process.
2.6
In a recent paper, the Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) discusses the challenges involved in dealing with very complex problems. These problems share a range of characteristics they go beyond the capacity of any one organisation to understand and respond to, and there is often disagreement about the causes of the problems and the best way to tackle them. These complex policy problems are sometimes called wicked problems not in the sense of evil, but as an issue highly resistant to resolution. Attempts to address wicked problems are hindered by the uncertainty they generate. Koppenjan and Klijn (2004) identified three forms of uncertainty that are clearly relevant to child protection: substantive uncertainty gaps and conflicting understandings in the knowledge base so that there is no clear, or shared, understanding of the nature of the problem strategic uncertainty many stakeholders, each with their own preferences, are involved institutional uncertainty relevant stakeholders are attached to a variety of organisational locations, networks and regulatory regimes so that processes for reaching decisions about wicked problems are messy and uncoordinated (Koppenjan and Klijn 2004 in Head and Alford 2008).
Using the APSC framework, the characteristics of wicked problems are set out in Box 2.1, which we have related to the problems and issues of child protection. Wicked problems such as child protection cannot be addressed with traditional approaches to policy-making and program implementation.
Box 2.1
CHARACTERISTICS OF WICKED PROBLEMS From the literature, several key characteristics of wicked problems emerge. Generally, wicked problems:
are difficult to clearly define the nature and extent of the problem depends on
who has been asked, i.e. stakeholders have different versions of the problem. For example, in child protection, practitioners from primary systems conceptualise the problem very differently from those providing tertiary services.
disagree based on the different emphasis they place on casual factors and how to focus efforts. Child protection is interrelated with other similarly complex policy problems including poverty, mental health, and drug and alcohol use.
are often not stable the context and/or evidence base is often changing as policymakers are attempting to address the problem. In child protection, changes in legislation and political responses to crises have the ability to change the operating environment significantly. wrong, but rather better or worse or good enough. Wicked problems also have no stopping rule i.e. the problem can never be completely solved.
usually have no clear solution solutions to wicked problems are often not right or
are socially complex and hardly ever sit conveniently within the responsibility of one organisation the social, rather than technical, complexity of wicked problems
generally overwhelms traditional problem-solving and project management approaches. Solutions to wicked problems generally involve coordinated effort by a range of stakeholders including government organisations (at several levels), nongovernment organisations and individuals.
the behaviour of individual citizens and organisations. This is certainly true for preventing child abuse and neglect, where the solutions involve building capability in vulnerable families.
Head and Alford (2008) propose that a problems wickedness is determined by two dimensions: complexity difficulties in acquiring knowledge about the problem and therefore its solution. Complexity is driven by a patchy knowledge base; complex interdependencies of processes and structures; and uncertainties arising from the contingent and dynamic nature of social issues and processes diversity the number and variety of stakeholders involved.
They combine these two dimensions to form a typology of problem types that have different levels of wickedness and require different solutions. In their typology, we propose that child protection has both high complexity and high diversity and is therefore a very wicked problem.
10
Table 2.1
TYPOLOGY OF PROBLEMS
Diversity Complexity Single party Multiple parties, each having only some of the relevant knowledge Multiple parties, conflicting values or interests
Both problems and solutions known Problem known, solution not known (relationship between cause and effect unclear) Neither problem or solution known
Tame problem
Wicked problem
Wicked problem
2.7
Wicked problems pose particular problems for public management systems. Traditional hierarchical systems are characterised by a focus on inputs and processes and organisational silos. Newer forms of public management that are focused on management and contracting out have also failed to adequately address wicked problems. These have created further systems problems such as competition between providers, program silos and a culture of narrow approaches in line with performance management processes (Head and Alford 2008). The APSC report provides three main coping strategies for wicked problems to bring about substantive change, predominately from the work of Professor Nancy Roberts (APSC 2007). These are: authoritative strategies the problem is given to some group or individual (identified by their knowledge, organisational position in the hierarchy, or their coercive power) who solves the problem and others abide by it. These approaches are efficient and quick but have a high likelihood of alienating stakeholders and adopting a solution that relates to the individual or groups narrow perspective. Authoritative strategies are useful in emergency situations. competitive strategies organisations or governments compete for power, influence and/or market share. These strategies are useful for stimulating innovation between providers but are not generally useful in other situations. collaborative strategies collaboration is premised on the idea that more can be achieved by joining forces than by individual action. It is particularly relevant where the solution involves behavioural change from stakeholders and/or systems change (APSC 2007; Roberts 2000).
11
The choice of strategies depends on how power to influence the problem is dispersed among stakeholders. If power is concentrated in a small number of stakeholders then the authoritative approach is appropriate to identify the problem and develop solutions. If power is dispersed and contested a competitive approach is appropriate. And finally, collaborative strategies are likely to be most effective when there are many stakeholders with dispersed power and where commitment is required from multiple stakeholders (Roberts 2000). There are many players involved in protecting children many government agencies, non-government organisations, communities and individuals, as well as professionals in several sectors. In the current systems for protecting children, often stakeholders are attempting to tame the wicked problem of protecting children by breaking it up into sub-problems that can be solved within their domain of control. For example, schools are attending to a childs behavioural issues but not delving further into what is happening at home. Under a collaborative model, stakeholders across multiple sectors would seek to implement a holistic approach driven by a shared understanding of the problem. In the past, governments across the country have largely implemented authoritative approaches to child protection, driven from the statutory system. As noted above, authoritative approaches are most effective for emergency situations. However in consultations conducted for this project, stakeholders consistently noted that child protection can no longer be treated as an emergency in response to a critical incident. Child protection is a chronic and ongoing issue that requires a systematic and long-term response. Given this context and that a shift towards prevention requires commitment from many interconnected system players, collaborative strategies are required to improve the effectiveness of Australian systems for protecting children. Collaborative strategies are more than just organisations working together more effectively. They recognise that systems for protecting children are like all systems a collection of parts that, through their interactions, function as whole (FosterFishman et al. 2007) and should therefore be considered as a whole. This impacts on all aspects of systems operations not just between but also within organisations. Reflecting this, Scott (2005) presents a conceptual framework for analysing interagency collaboration that covers five levels of analysis: inter-organisational, intra-organisational, inter-professional, inter-personal and intra-personal. In this framework, conflict at any one of these levels can impact on inter-organisational collaboration. But collaborative strategies alone do not solve wicked problems. Collaborative strategies provide a way to overcome high diversity in wicked problems but do not address high complexity issues (see Table 2.1 above). Head and Alford (2008) propose that problems with high complexity also require a problem solving approach that analyses the casual relationships within the problem. However, they note the clear benefits of collaborative strategies in facilitating problem solving. The benefits of collaboration for problems with high diversity and high complexity are: cooperative networks allow the problem and its underlying causes to be better understood as a wide range of stakeholders bring insights to make sense of the complexity provisional solutions are more likely to be found and agreed upon
12
implementation of solutions is easier as there is agreement and adjustments can be made along the way.
This was also a key finding from the consultations. For example, Professor Scott reported that collaboration, although one part of the solution, was not the panacea to solve the child protection problem. She, and others, considered that major policy reform is also required to embed a preventive approach. Recognising this, the remainder of this chapter is focused on the systems change required to shift to prevention in line with collaborative strategies.
2.8
The framework
A diagram of the conceptual framework for addressing child protection as a wicked problem is illustrated in Figure 2.1. The framework begins with the wicked problem and ends with a prevention model in between are dimensions, strategies and actions that need to be systematically addressed in order to achieve the goal. The collaborative strategies and systems change (denoted within the dashed box) represent the scope of the current project as outlined in the original ARACY brief. The analytical thinking and the policy change lie outside the scope of this project but remain intrinsic to shifting systems to a more preventive model.
Figure 2.1
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
2.9
A collaborative approach
13
Some critical changes are required to enhance systems for protecting children in Australia. These changes need to centre on shifting the focus to prevention and early intervention in child protection systems. This will require increased coordination and collaboration across the range of primary, secondary and tertiary services that aim to prevent the occurrence or re-occurrence of child abuse and neglect (Allen Consulting Group 2003). From a national perspective, there are three overlapping levels of division in child protection systems where collaboration and coordination are needed. These divisions are: Between organisations child protection systems require transformation from a single child welfare agency to a system of shared responsibility and mutual support (Daro et al. 2005) this means improving cross-agency collaboration within government between core child protection agencies and those agencies providing services for families and children more broadly, including primary and secondary services it also involves improving collaboration between those non-government providers that deliver the wide range of community-based supports to families and children. Between jurisdictions the Australian Government, the states and territories (the states) and local governments are all engaged in systems that work with families and children. Child protection has traditionally been a state responsibility, however the Australian Government funds and delivers a range of primary and secondary services that aim to assist in preventing child abuse and has primary responsibility for welfare payment systems. To varying degrees in different jurisdictions, local governments also provide services to support children and families. Between sectors between the government and non-government sectors. The non-government sector is a large provider of child protection services, including in some jurisdictions, as a provider of tertiary services.
In addition, in each of the levels described above there is a need for different human services systems to interact more effectively. These human services systems include primary systems such as primary health care and the education system, secondary systems such as the family support, and tertiary systems including intensive child protection services. Strategies for preventing child abuse and neglect need to be multi-faceted and span a variety of systems across organisational, jurisdictional and government and non-government lines. Currently, the systems for caring for and protecting children are not well coordinated, are poorly integrated and lack ongoing financial support. There is increasing acknowledgement that these fundamental issues can be successfully addressed only through approaches based on a sound knowledge base and effective collaborative processes (Head and Stanley 2007). Sustainable change can be achieved only if there is long-term collaboration and coordinated delivery of services across all organisations and systems that affect children and youth.
14
15
Integrated governance is not an end in itself but is about addressing those issues and problems that can only be solved in partnership. Hence, the concept of integrated governance incorporates an element of mutuality, as opposed to individual action. This is mutuality in terms not just of consultation but also in terms of shared responsibility for policy and program development, planning, implementation and evaluation. It begins with the articulation of a shared vision and purpose, agreement on the key tasks to achieve them, and identification of the indicators to judge effectiveness. It must necessarily also involve individual organisations and agencies relinquishing some control. Integrated governance arrangements permit, support and facilitate cooperation and collaboration among different agencies. The structures and relationships that are appropriate in a particular case should be determined by what is necessary to achieve the agreed objectives and outcomes, taking into account the specific local conditions. It is not enough to just integrate relationships at the local level. Each level of integration is hindered if there is a lack of integration above it. Hence, as would be expected, leadership and commitment at the top of the organisations are critical to successful integration, with formal structures for ongoing dialogue to clear the barriers (IPAA 2002). Legislative support may be required to give effect to collaborative relationships among the relevant government and non-government agencies. The aim would be to provide a unifying framework for the protection and welfare of children.
16
Chapter 3
Project methodology
3.1 Introduction
This chapter provides an overview of the methodology used to produce this report and defines the system boundaries for the analysis in the report. In short, the methodology involved five phases: Phase 1: Developing a conceptual framework for analysis Phase 2: Literature review Phase 3: Stocktake of child protection systems in Australia Phase 4: Stakeholder consultations Phase 5: Systems analysis
These phases are briefly described in this chapter and are detailed as appropriate throughout the report.
3.2
Project phases
Three case studies were selected for detailed analysis in this phase of the project. Each of the chosen case studies used collaborative strategies and demonstrated a movement towards a preventive model for protecting children. The case studies include one from Australia (every child every chance and Child FIRST in Victoria), the UK (Every Child Matters), and the US (Community Partnerships for Protecting Children).
17
Before reviewing the case studies an evaluation matrix was developed. The matrix assisted in examining the key systems and organisational features of each case study, identifying innovative and effective elements, and identifying the change that has occurred over time. Part III includes the evaluation matrix and the detailed analysis of the three case studies using the matrix. In addition, key sources from the academic literature were reviewed, which informed the analysis throughout the report.
These strategic thinkers provided insights and observations into the functioning of the systems for protecting children as a whole, including the interactions between the various systems.
18
In addition, the Allen Consulting Group conducted a limited number of consultations with key providers of services to children and families. These consultations particularly focused on government and non-government providers of childrens and family support services, namely: child and family health services education services family support services statutory child protection services.
Consultations with providers were in no way intended to comprehensively cover all of the services involved in preventing child abuse and neglect, but were designed to elicit broad insights at the operational level on systems enablers and barriers to a preventive model for protecting children. Additionally, as this report focuses on organisational systems for protecting children, families were not included in the consultation process. Consultations with providers offered rich information into the culture and perceived roles of these groups and these have been included in the analysis. It should be noted, however, that many other provider groups were not consulted. This is a limitation of this project and further consultation with the many provider groups would be valuable to progress systems change. The consultation discussions centred around how to shift from a statutory dominated model for protecting children to a model that emphasises primary and secondary prevention. A consultation guide was developed and sent to each participant prior to the consultation session. This guide gave an overview of the project and outlined questions to be discussed. The full consultation guide is included in this report as Appendix A. Detailed findings from the consultations are incorporated into Part II systems analysis.
A framework for systems analysis was adopted from the work of Foster-Fishman et al. (2007) on organisational and systems change in the human services. This framework assisted in structuring the analysis and providing a firm foundation from which to identify levers for change. This framework is described in detail in Chapter 4.
19
3.3
System boundaries
This project is essentially a systems analysis. Systems can be defined as a collection of parts that, through their interactions, function as a whole (FosterFishman et al. 2007, p. 198). This definition can apply to relatively small units, such as a family, and to a relatively large network, such as a human service delivery network. In the context of systems change, the systems are the set of actors, activities, and settings that are directly or indirectly perceived to have influence in or be affected by a given problem situation (Foster-Fishman et al. 2007, p. 198). This definition can also allow for systems of varying scope and size, and this project sought to establish the boundaries of the systems for the analysis that follows essentially, who and what is contained in the systems for protecting children. First, this report focuses on the service systems that provide primary, secondary and tertiary interventions to children and families to prevent child abuse and neglect from occurring and re-occurring. Focusing on service systems in this report does not imply that broader family, community and societal influences (and strategies) do not have a significant role to play in shifting to a preventive model for protecting children. Rather, it is a limitation in the scope of the project and should be carefully considered and researched as a next step. Second, this report defines five subsystems (or sectors) within the broader system for protecting children. These are: childrens services including health, education, care, disability family support statutory child protection including out-of-home care specialist services for parental risk factors including drug and alcohol, mental health and family violence police and justice.
System boundaries are inherently an arbitrary construction but must be drawn to facilitate a manageable analysis (Midgley 2000 in Foster-Fishman et al. 2007). There are many other service sectors that influence child abuse and neglect. For example, homelessness and parental intellectual disability are both risk factors for child abuse and neglect but have not been included in this analysis. Many of the findings of this report will apply to these sectors, although they can not necessarily be generalised. Finally, although the system boundaries include specialist services for parental risk factors including drug and alcohol, mental health and family violence, and police and justice, most stakeholders consulted for this review presented views and perspectives from, and about, the first three subsystems listed above. This bias is reflected in the analysis contained in the report and the findings should be tested with stakeholders across the subsystems in future work.
20
I ndigenous issues
The basic elements of systems change to move from a tertiary dominated child protection system to a preventive public health model for protecting children would in principle seem highly relevant and appropriate for Indigenous children, young people and their families. The elements of this change emphasise collaborative working relationships between and among the service systems that provide primary, secondary and tertiary interventions to children and families to prevent child abuse and neglect from occurring and re-occurring. This collaboration necessarily includes: articulation of a shared vision building a supportive culture integrated governance arrangements legislative support.
Although it is hoped that a move to a prevention focus with collaborative working relationships at its centre is appropriate for Indigenous children and families, this should not be assumed. As was highlighted in Section 1.1, there are notable differences in Indigenous childrens experiences of the child protection system compared with nonIndigenous children. Indigenous children are significantly over-represented in the number of substantiations and placements in out-of-home care. These differences indicate that there are serious and entrenched child protection concerns within Indigenous communities that need to be further explored. These issues are so important and challenging that it is not possible to adequately address them in this report. They require further exploration, led by consultation with Indigenous communities, organisations and stakeholders.
21
Part II
Systems analysis
22
Chapter 4
Part II of this report provides an analysis of the current systems for protecting children in Australia in the context of our change goal developing a system for protecting children that prevents child abuse and neglect based on the public health model. The conceptual framework for this project, described in Chapter 2, argues that an effective prevention model requires a collaborative approach that brings various subsystems and system members together to prevent child abuse and neglect. The analysis in this part seeks to answer the question at the heart of this project how can we shift the current systems for protecting children to a prevention model? Part II is structured as follows: the remainder of this chapter introduces the framework for system analysis used in this part, and the methodology for systems analysis Chapter 5 analyses system norms attitudes, beliefs and values that underpin the system Chapter 6 analyses system resources human, social and economic that reflect the capacity of the system to perform its functions Chapter 7 analyses system regulations rules and practices that govern the system Chapter 9 analyses system power and decision-making that influence system functioning.
4.2
The framework for systems change used in this report draws on the work by Foster-Fishman et al. (2007) on organisational and systems change in the human services. Systems change is required when a system is failing to meet its goals. It is clear that child protection systems in Australia are failing to protect children in the shortterm and the long-term. The high rate of re-notifications of alleged child abuse and neglect and re-substantiations (AIHW 2008) suggests that children are not being protected from short-term harm. Moreover, research demonstrates the very poor long-term outcomes for children who have been engaged in the child protection system, particularly those in care (Doyle 2007). The process of systems change outlined by Foster-Fishman et al. (2007) requires: Step 1: establishing system boundaries by determining who and what is contained in the system given the targeted problem. System boundaries for this project were established in Section 3.3.
23
Step 2: locating root causes to systemic problems by identifying system parts that explain the status quo. Step 3: using this information to identify leverage points for change.
Incorporating these two dimensions, Table 4.1 provides guiding questions for analysing and understanding critical system parts.
24
Table 4.1
ANALYSING CRITICAL SYSTEM PARTS System characteristic System norms: attitudes, beliefs and values Guiding questions What are the values guiding the current programs, policies and practices within the system? What are the values guiding the proposed change? To what extent are the two compatible? Is there a shared understanding of the problem and the change goal? How do system members see their role in solving the problem? Will these perspectives help or hinder the change? System resources: human, social and economic
Human resources
How will system members be expected to behave if the systems change effort is successful? Do they have the skills and capacity for this role?
Social resources
To what extent are relationships among stakeholders a contributing factor in system failure? What aspects of the system might support or hinder relationships? How will relationships need to shift in order for the change goal to be realised who will need to interact with whom and what will be the nature of that interaction?
Economic resources
What new resources are needed to support the desired change? How does the system need to use its resources differently to support the change goal? Who might perceive this reallocation as a loss? System regulations: rules and practices What system rules might help or hinder change? What current processes and practices exacerbate the problem or have made it difficult to resolve issues in the past? What current processes and practices are incompatible with the change goal? What system regulations are not in place but are needed to fully support the change goal? System power and decisionmaking What types of decisions are most critical to the functioning of the system and where does authority for these decisions rest? Where should it rest to achieve the change goal? How are other system members engaged in the decision-making processes? What engagement will be required for systems change? How does the systems change effort challenge the existing power and decision-making structures? What new structures will need to be developed?
Source: Adapted from Foster-Fishman et al. 2007.
In either case, systems change will depend on the ability of a shift in that system part to effect change in other system parts. Foster-Fishman et al. (2007) identify four questions to assist in identifying strategic parts to leverage for change. These are: Which system parts are currently inconsistent with the systems change goal? Which parts support the systems change goal? 25
Which parts are most likely to trigger system wide change? Which of the above levers for change can actually be altered given current resources and understandings?
4.3
Part II is an analysis of the current systems for protecting children across Australia, rather than a state-by-state analysis. This approach reflects the key finding of the recent project report of A National Approach to Child Protection that child protection systems across Australia are largely similar. It also reflects the generally consistent messages from consultations across Australia about the problems in the current systems for protecting children. It should be noted that recent reforms to the Victorian system for protecting children reflect a different model and the consultation messages from, and about, the Victorian system were not consistent with the issues raised about systems in other jurisdictions. As such, this report uses the Victorian reforms as a case study of systems change, and the general analysis of the current systems in Australia do not largely reflect the Victorian experience. As Part II is a systems analysis it draws heavily on the views of system members gained during stakeholder consultations. Consultation data is necessarily the primary source of information in this part, as the views of system members provide the greatest insight into system functions, and malfunctions. Consultation data is complemented by findings from key academic sources, from the public sector management literature on wicked problems and joined-up working, and from the case studies of systems change (Part III). The limitations of the system analysis therefore reflect the limitations of the consultation data described in Chapter 3.
26
Chapter 5
System norms and culture are a critical part of the functioning of a system. The values, beliefs and attitudes that system members hold determine how they see systemic problems, how they define solutions, and how the see their roles. When other system members share these values, they can become a dominant normative context or culture that determines how a system or a subsystem operates (FosterFishman et al. 2007, p. 205). To bring about systems change, existing culture is very important. Where the values underpinning the change goal align with the existing values, this facilitates systems change. On the other hand, where system values conflict with the values underpinning the change goal, many authors in change management argue there is likely to be resistance to change which can delay or derail the change effort. That said, system norms that are supportive of the change goal will not alone assure the change is successful (Foster-Fishman et al. 2007). This chapter analyses the attitudes, beliefs and values that underpin the current systems for protecting children in Australia universal, targeted (family support) and statutory child protection by considering three sets of questions: What are the values guiding the current programs, policies and practices within the system? What are the values guiding the proposed change? To what extent are the two compatible? Is there a shared understanding of the problem and the change goal? How do system members see their role in solving the problem? Will these perspectives help or hinder the change?
5.2
Before analysing the system norms underpinning the Australian system for protecting children, it is worthwhile to briefly describe the different approaches adopted by governments to protecting children. These approaches provide the context for analysing system norms, as they reflect the broad philosophy that underpins the way child protection is conceptualised in a society. The following section is an extract from previous work by Allen Consulting Group (2003, pp. 1214) for the Victorian Department of Human Services, which compared international approaches to protecting children. All governments would agree that children should not be abused or neglected and would wish for their safety, wellbeing and positive development into adulthood. However, governments differ significantly in the policies and programs they implement to ensure this. Within western OECD countries, two broad approaches by government to the problems of child abuse and neglect have been identified: the child protection orientation (for example, Australia, UK, USA and Canada) and the family service orientation (for example, Sweden, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands). 27
The different approaches are based on different views about what can and should be done by government to protect children from abuse and neglect and ensure their wellbeing. They have developed in different socioeconomic and cultural contexts and are founded on different orientations to children and families: The child protection orientation emphasises the individual rights of parents and children. Government recognises the rights and responsibilities of parents to care for their children and their right to privacy. But if there is evidence of suspected abuse or neglect the government recognises the rights of children to protection. In the context of suspected abuse, the primary focus of interventions is the childs welfare, which may require the early involvement of government in protection interventions. The potential for coercive intervention is therefore indicated at an early stage in any work with families. The starting point for intervention in the family service orientation is the recognition that children are best cared for within the family. The emphasis is placed on family unity and working with families as a whole to support and strengthen the parent-child relationship and family wellbeing. Under this orientation, there is much broader government and community support for all families in their care of children. The normalisation of community intervention is associated with a greater degree of voluntary accessing of services by families. Within this approach, the invocation of statutory powers is an intervention of last resort.
The two approaches have very different service responses and consequences for children and families. The different orientations impact on how families access services, the type of services offered, the role of the legal system, and attitudes to out-of-home care. The key characteristics of the two approaches are set out in Table 5.1.
28
Table 5.1
CHARACTERISTICS OF TWO BROAD GOVERNMENT APPROACHES TO CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT Characteristic Framing the problem of child abuse and neglect Child protection orientation The need to protect children from harm. Family service orientation Abuse and neglect is most often a result of family conflict or dysfunction stemming from social, economic and 1 psychological difficulties. Range of entry points and services. Supportive or therapeutic responses to meeting the needs of children and families or resolving problems. Embedded within and normalised by broad child welfare or public health services. Resources are available to more families at an earlier stage. Flexible to meet clients needs. Partnership. Last resort; informal; inquisitorial. Mainly voluntary.
Entry to services Basis of government intervention and services provided Place of services
Single entry point; report or notification by third party. Legal, investigative in order to formulate child safety plans.
Separated from family support services. Resources are concentrated on families where risks of (re-) abuse are high and immediate. Standardised procedures; rigid timelines. Adversarial. Adversarial; formal; evidence-based. Mainly involuntary.
Coverage
Service approach Stateparent relationship Role of the legal system Out-of-home care.
Source: Allen Consulting Group (2003), based on Gilbert, N (ed), Combating Child Abuse: International Perspectives and Trends, Oxford University Press, New York, 1997; Scottish Executive, Its Everyones Job to Make Sure Im Alright: Report of the Child Protection Audit and Review, 2002; and Hetherington, R, Cooper, A, Smith, P and Wilford, G 1997, Protecting Children: Messages From Europe, Russell House Publishing, Lyme Regis.
5.3
Guiding values
The change goal preventing child abuse and neglect is guided by a moral obligation to children to protect them from direct harm from abuse and neglect within their families and from the indirect harm associated with involvement with the child protection system (ODonnell et al. 2008). It also reflects values of supporting families before they are in crisis and the belief that abuse and neglect can be prevented in most families if adequate support is provided early enough. At its core, preventing child abuse reflects a belief that for the vast majority of children, the best place for them is with their families. The values underpinning the current system can be analysed at two levels: at a whole-of-system level the values reflected in the way the whole system for protecting children functions at a subsystem level the values reflected in each subsystem (including childrens services, family support and statutory subsystems).
Family service orientation systems also acknowledge dangerous families and/or the psychopathic carer from whom children need to be protected.
29
Governments have, in response to intense media and political pressure, continually refocused child protection efforts to identifying children at risk and statutory responses employing surveillance and control mechanisms (Harris and Wood 2008). The fear of false negatives in child protection agencies has led to net widening more cases being screened into child protection and forensic investigation of many families that seek help, rather than a more appropriate offer of support (Thorpe 2007). As a result of net widening, a large number of families are engaged in the statutory system that do not meet the threshold for statutory intervention around 80 per cent of notifications to child protection agencies are not substantiated (ODonnell et al. 2008; Thorpe 2007; Bromfield and Holzer 2008). Associated with net widening is a concern from many that the emphasis on statutory intervention is undermining, or swamping, other important (regulatory) strategies such as the provision of support (Harris and Wood 2008). The experience of involvement with the statutory child protection system is highly traumatic for families. Parents negative experiences of the statutory child protection process is well documented in the literature (see example in Thorpe 2007) and was supported by several stakeholders consulted for this project. Parents feel strongly aggrieved by the process, that they are demonised by departmental staff, treated with little respect and cast as bad parents. Moreover, several studies have found that parents experienced a betrayal of trust when they voluntarily sought assistance and instead were investigated. As a result, Thorpe (2007) reports that evidence is building that families are avoiding contact with other government services through fear they will come to the attention of the child protection department. This response by families clearly undermines the goal of prevention. As a result of the culture of risk underpinning the statutory child protection system, engaging with families using the statutory system is not effective for providing support to those many families who are in need (rather than in crisis) when they come into contact with the statutory system (Bromfield and Holzer 2008). Another entry point for support services for who are families in need is required. Many stakeholders also reported a systemic culture of risk aversion in organisations that deal with vulnerable children and families in universal and targeted subsystems. As one stakeholder noted in consultations: we have moved from risk management to risk avoidance service delivery is poorer for it because we are so frozen by risk. As a result, several stakeholders reported chronic dumping of complex (or high risk) cases between services and subsystems, and stringent gatekeeping in services to exclude families that present a high risk. 30
Some child protection agencies reported that universal and secondary services (including adult services such as drug and alcohol services etc.) were not adequately responding to complex families and so by default these families come into contact with the statutory system. These stakeholders perceived that universal services in particular were happy to work with good families but were transferring the risk associated with more complex cases to child protection rather than taking any responsibility for these clients. It was perceived by some stakeholders that once universal (and some secondary) providers had made a report of alleged abuse or neglect to child protection agencies that they then withdrew service provision from the complex family. This risk aversion in universal and secondary services further contributes to the overburdening of the tertiary system. An opposing view from some universal providers was that child protection agencies were relying on universal services to provide surveillance of clients that did not meet their risk threshold rather than providing appropriate secondary support.
31
Entry to the statutory system for a family is primarily through a report and participation is involuntary. The system has a range of strong coercive tools to protect children from further harm, with the most powerful being removal. A core value underpinning this system is that a childs safety is paramount and that the family is not always the best place for a child. This subsystem reflects the values that underpin a child protection orientation to protecting children. These values are not consistent with the change goal but they reflect the current function of the statutory system to investigate and intervene in (including through removal of children) families in a crisis situation. That these values do not reflect the values of the change goal is not itself a problem, as these activities will always be a part of the child protection system. However they may be reformed for a small number of families where primary and secondary prevention efforts have chronically failed (ODonnell et al. 2008). Values of mistrust of parents that underlie investigatory processes in the statutory system may be necessary to identify those families that would escape detection in family partnership approaches, similar to the values that underpin police processes to detect criminal offenders. However, as noted above, many families who come into contact with the statutory system need support, rather than forensic investigation. For these families, the values underpinning the statutory system are counterproductive to prevention and incident-based risk frameworks which have dominated child protection systems for decades are problematic as a basis for early intervention and achieving collaborative models of care (Winkworth and McArthur 2007, p. 46).
Collaboration
Different values between subsystems (and between professional groups) also impact on the ability for services to collaborate to deliver services around a child or familys needs. Some stakeholders directly reported a culture of distrust between professional groups and subsystems whereas others made observations that suggest a culture of distrust, for example: universal childrens services providers reported a reluctance to refer their clients to statutory child protection agencies for support due to perceptions of different values underpinning their practice some child and family health providers perceive that general practitioners (GPs) are unwilling to engage with psycho-social health issues child protection agencies perceive an unwillingness in universal services to identify when a child is at risk of harm several stakeholders reported that they were frustrated with inadequate responses from other agencies that did not see their case as a priority.
In these examples, different values are a barrier to developing an integrated system for protecting children and collaboration between different professional groups remains a key challenge. Professional groups develop and maintain specialised knowledge this is what makes them professionals. It has been argued that:
professionalism is characterised by domination, authority and control rather than collegiality whereas the development of collaborative practice depends on recognition by people with differing expertise of their interdependence, including accepting that there are grey zones where this expertise may overlap Winkworth and McArthur 2007, p. 48
32
However, stakeholders also reported many positive experiences in working collaboratively across subsystems where respect and trust had been built between professional groups and individuals in agencies. Some examples of mechanisms to build this trust are: liaison officers who are embedded in another agency and can reflect the values, practices, concerns and ideas of their home agency joint training between professionals training from child protection agencies to other professional groups that work with children and families to showcase their role and practices. This was seen to reduce the mistrust of child protection workers co-location and integrated services such as wraparound child and family centres which bring together a number of key services (including child protection officers in some cases).
5.4
The importance of building shared understanding of, and responsibility for, the problem cannot be understated in tackling wicked problems:
the Holy Grail of effective collaboration is in creating shared understanding about the problem, and shared commitment to the possible solutions. Shared understanding does not mean we necessarily agree on the problem Shared understanding means that stakeholders understand each others positions well enough to have intelligent dialogue about the different interpretations of the problem, and to exercise collective intelligence about how to solve it. J. Conklin cited in APSC 2007, pp. 2728
There was a high level of agreement amongst stakeholders from all states and territories and across service systems about the problem at a broad level. This is that current systems were failing to adequately protect children and that this failure had wide ranging impacts on childrens lives. Stakeholders also consistently reported that the demand on the statutory child protection system was unsustainable and was counterproductive to the goal of protecting children. Further, many stakeholders considered that the high numbers of children in out-ofhome care was also counterproductive to protecting children from poor outcomes in the long-term. There was also clear agreement from stakeholders that the best way to protect children is to prevent child abuse and neglect from occurring in the first place. All stakeholders recognised the value of the public health model in providing families with tiered interventions along the continuum of need. Further, there was wide agreement that more secondary prevention interventions for families are required. Despite agreement on the broad problem and the goal, stakeholders did not all agree on how and why systems for protecting children are failing children. Stakeholders across and within service systems also presented a range of views about how they perceive their role in solving the problem.
33
Childrens services
Universal child and family health and education stakeholders presented mixed views when asked about their role in preventing child abuse and neglect. Many stakeholders initial responses were that they report suspected cases of child abuse and neglect according to mandatory reporting obligations. Most stakeholders in universal services also saw their role as identifying families that require additional support and referring them to targeted services. They considered that they already fulfilled this role and saw an increased role for secondary family support services in bringing about change. Some stakeholders from the education sector did not see family support as their core business and reported a resistance among their professional group to expectations that universal service providers should undertake this function. In addition, some universal providers also reported that they were uncomfortable with protecting children being an explicit part of their professional role. Some stakeholders also did not consider that their workforce was equipped to respond effectively to complex cases and reported frustration that there were inadequate secondary services for them to refer such clients to. However, stakeholders from community child and family health services and education considered that they are well placed to take on an expanded role in protecting children. Some of these universal service providers saw a role in providing secondary interventions to address risk factors for child abuse and neglect, such as providing support for parents dealing with behavioural issues. In other cases, providers are already taking on an expanded role as part of multidisciplinary teams with explicit child protection objectives. They consider that their workforce is highly skilled in working with families and has regular contact with families. In addition, universal services are well accepted by families as they are non-stigmatising and non-threatening, and they provide an opportunity to work with families that may not seek help from a statutory child protection agency. Universal service providers such as GPs and early childhood education and care workers were not consulted for this project. However, other stakeholders did comment on the role of these providers in line with the change goal. For GPs, stakeholders noted that professional boundaries and funding arrangements (that is, GPs are private businesses) were potential barriers to an enhanced role in protecting children. For early childhood education and care workers, some stakeholders considered that lack of a skilled workforce would restrict this group from taking on an enhanced role in working with families to protect children.
Targeted
Stakeholders from the targeted family support system (including government and non-government) clearly reported that an expanded role in their sector was critical to preventing child abuse and neglect. Stakeholders from the community sector considered that their services were best placed to deliver family support services because: they have strong connections with the community they are perceived as less threatening than government services by clients who fear the surveillance of child protection agencies.
They suggested that government agencies particularly those that also provide statutory child protection services need to relinquish some control of family support services. 34
Stakeholders from adult services that address parental risk factors, such as mental health and drug and alcohol services, were not consulted for this project. However, a number of commentators consulted for this review, including Professor Dorothy Scott, reported the critical importance of the role of the services in driving systems change. It was argued that these adult services do not see the child when dealing with their client the parent. These services need to reconceptualise (or conceptualise in the first place) their role in protecting children by seeing the adult client in the context of their family (Cashmore, Scott and Calvert 2008).
Stakeholders generally considered that their workforce was highly qualified and best placed to identify those families in need, and provide secondary prevention services. As such, most agencies with responsibility for statutory child protection also provide primary and/or secondary prevention services. Most of these are also in the process of building or developing the capacity of their early intervention services that, in most cases, receive direct referrals from the statutory child protection process (Bromfield and Holzer 2008).
35
In addition, stakeholders noted that any new investment from the Australian Government in protecting children should be implemented in collaboration with the state and territory governments, rather than as stand alone Australian Government programs. Several stakeholders noted that the Communities for Children program was an example where a stand-alone national program was not implemented collaboratively with the following impacts: state and territory stakeholders felt they had been sidelined the program implementation did not benefit from local knowledge the program undermined or duplicated existing state and territory programs.
Shared responsibility?
How system members see their role in solving the problem reflects in part the degree of shared responsibility for solving the problem in the system as a whole. From consultations conducted for this review there is a broad sentiment of shared responsibility and a willingness to be part of the solution. This is consistent with the findings of A national approach to child protection: project report. On the basis of their comprehensive review of mechanisms to facilitate joined-up working in child welfare, Bromfield and Holzer (2008) report:
it appears that there exists a shared view across governments that child protection is everyones responsibility. There was the belief in the notion that child welfare is a wholeof-government, whole-of-community, interagency responsibility; and that childrens safety and wellbeing is enhanced when services are available to strengthen families an communities. A wide range of mechanisms had been established to facilitative joined up responses within government as well as between governments and non-government organisations Bromfield and Holzer 2008, p. 52
However, the broad sentiment of shared responsibility (which is also formalised in a range of whole-of-government mechanisms) does not appear to be fully reflected in the way system members saw their roles. Overall findings are: Universal providers consider that their role is to promote the wellbeing of all children rather than safety or child protection. Views were mixed among universal providers consulted for this project about their role in protecting children. Family support service providers (outside of child protection agencies) expressed a strong willingness for an expanded role in secondary prevention. Statutory child protection agencies clearly acknowledged the need for differential responses to reports of alleged child abuse and neglect, and a role for their agency to further develop and/or provide secondary prevention strategies.
The sentiment of shared responsibility needs to be translated into action through a cultural shift. This requires consideration of which systems players are best placed to deliver prevention strategies some systems players will need to step up whilst others may need to let go and transfer responsibility.
36
Stakeholders involved in implementing the Child FIRST reforms in Victoria reported that risk and responsibility were key issues that needed to be addressed with the NGO sector in Victoria. They reported there was a concern from NGOs that the government was transferring risk by introducing community-based intake. To overcome this, Victoria underwent a very rigorous process of clarifying responsibilities and accountabilities with the sector. Further discussion about roles of systems players to meet the change goal is provided in Chapter 6.
37
Chapter 6
The resources available to a system reflect the capacity of a system to perform its functions currently, and in-line with the change goal. System resources represent inputs into the system and can be categorised as:
Human resources the knowledge, skills and capabilities available to the system. Inadequate or inappropriate human resources can limit the ability for systems change. Even if the values, attitudes and beliefs of system members are aligned with the change goal, they may not have the right skills and expertise to implement the desired change. Social resources social resources are the social relationships between critical
systems players. Relationships can play a facilitating or constraining role in systems.
This chapter analyses the resources available in the current systems for protecting children in Australia by considering three sets of questions: Human resources: how will system members be expected to behave if the systems change effort is successful? Do they have the skills and capacity for this role? Social resources: to what extent are relationships amongst stakeholders a contributing factor in system failure? What aspects of the system might support or hinder relationships? how will relationships need to shift in order for the change goal to be realised who will need to interact with whom and what will be nature of that interaction? Economic resources: what new resources are needed to support the desired change? How does the system need to use its resources differently to support the change goal? Who might perceive this reallocation as a loss?
6.2
Human resources
Implementing a public health model for preventing child abuse and neglect requires a fundamental change in roles for many systems players. If we recall the visual depiction of the current system in most states it reflects two scenarios: 38
where a state or territorys system reflects an inverted pyramid (scenario one) an increase in primary prevention and secondary prevention strategies for protecting children is required where a state or territorys system reflects an hourglass (scenario two) an increase in secondary prevention strategies is required.
Both scenarios would see a decreased role for tertiary prevention strategies. The implications for system human resources of these changes is analysed below.
As noted in Chapter 5, universal childrens services providers consulted for this review expressed a range of views about taking on an expanded role to provide more targeted interventions. However, in many jurisdictions universal providers are already providing targeted services. Interventions provided off universal platforms have also been shown to work. For example, targeted nurse home visiting is provided in several jurisdictions and has been found to have positive outcomes for reducing the incidence of child abuse and neglect (Karoly et al. 2005). Several stakeholders noted that nurses in particular are well-trusted in the community by families and this should be leveraged for more intensive interventions. On the other hand, others suggested that the role of the community child and family nurse was already over stretched and, at the risk of losing the services that nurses currently provide as core business, it may be more strategic to use other professional groups to provide secondary supports. 39
ODonnell et al. (2008) argue that providing secondary strategies off a universal platform reduces the stigma associated with a dedicated targeted service. Professor Scott and others in consultations argued for increased training, professional development and supervision for universal providers such as nurses to deliver an expanded role. In addition, most stakeholders reported that there was a critical shortage of secondary family support services (particularly providing intensive support) in the system and this was the key area for expansion. Further, most child protection agencies considered that there was a lack of NGO capacity for expansion in their jurisdiction. Most states suggested that the expansion of the family support sector in Victoria was a reflection of the stronger capacity in the NGO sector in Victoria. In contrast, NGOs reported that their capacity was restricted primarily by funding, and that they had the skills and expertise to deliver secondary prevention. They reported that current funding levels for NGOs made it difficult for them to attract and retain qualified staff as government agencies were able to pay higher rates. Finally, several stakeholders reported that improving the capacity for workers in adult services to respond to children and families provides a significant opportunity for preventing child abuse and neglect given the strong correlation with drug and alcohol use, mental health and family violence (ODonnell et al. 2008). This would require a philosophical shift for the human resources in this subsystem and would require training and professional development.
40
These approaches need not be mutually exclusive. For example, although UK reforms hinge on building a culture of collaboration based on appropriate skills and expertise, they also include dedicated resources for coordination and collaboration efforts. The Management Advisory Committee report Connecting Government recognises the importance of building culture and capability for whole-of-government working and highlights the role of leadership in building this capacity. Leaders in the Australian Public Service are required to promote cooperation, give explicit and consistent support for collegiate and horizontal approaches, and participate in cross-portfolio training activities (MAC 2004, p. 5). The MAC report also notes that working across boundaries is core business for agencies who should provide practical support to build the capability for joined-up working within their agencies. The MAC guidance on what support should be provided is in Box 6.1.
41
Box 6.1
BUILDING CAPABILITY FOR WHOLE-OF-GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES The MAC report on Connecting Government suggests that departments and agencies should support whole-of-government activities by: developing systems and procedures to support authorisation for appropriate local decision-making; capability development focusing on constructive working relationships with other APS agencies and external organisations; and accountability arrangements taking steps to become more responsive to whole-of-government demands, including through more intensive training for those directly involved in whole-of-government projects learning opportunities for middle and senior managers in skills relevant to whole-of-government activities, including project management, communications and relationship management networking to broaden the exposure of APS employees to different organisational cultures and ways of working access to better practice guidance and to assistance with team building and conflict resolution the adoption of reward and recognition arrangements for whole-of-government achievements.
reflecting whole-of-government perspectives in induction and learning and leadership development programs.
6.3
Social resources
As noted in the introduction to this chapter, social resources refer to the relationships between system members. A collaborative model for protecting children in its essence is built on the relationships between: government agencies and services government and non-government agencies professional groups in both government and private sector services (for example, GPs).
Key findings from stakeholders are that relationships should enable: At the planning level cross-agency agreement on goals and objectives joint planning of services to avoid duplication and gaps sharing of local population level data to allow joint planning of services according to local needs sharing of knowledge and evidence about what works sharing of resources (funding and/or staff) to meet service needs. At the service delivery level integrated case management and/or case coordination to provide more comprehensive services for the most vulnerable families development of formal or informal processes and protocols between services (including for referrals) sharing of knowledge, experiences and issues to build trust and professional respect. Stakeholders also reported a commitment in their jurisdiction to interagency relationships with a range of mechanisms in place to support interagency working at the planning level (strategic) as well as at the service delivery (operational) level. The project report, A National Approach to Child Protection (Bromfield and Holzer 2008), provides a comprehensive overview of the strategic and operational mechanisms currently in place within jurisdictions. Their key findings were: all jurisdictions had a number of mechanism in place for joined-up working, with a strong focus on interagency collaboration the most popular strategic mechanisms were state-wide strategic plans and interdepartmental committees and senior officers groups, with political and departmental structure also commonly utilised (such as a Minister for Child Safety, or dedicated child safety directors within departments) the most common operational mechanism were interagency guidelines and groups and response teams; legislative mechanisms and local strategies were also important.
However, despite these mechanisms and broad consensus on how effective relationships would look, several stakeholders reported that interagency relationships have been a clear area of failure in protecting children, and that collaborating effectively remains a challenge. These stakeholders report the following key challenges in interagency relationships:
Professional culture leads to concerns about confidentiality and breaking client trust. For example, adult-focused services are reluctant to share information with child protection agencies as it compromises their client confidentiality (Scott 2005). Lack of understanding, time or not having established relationships with other providers is an issue. Beyond mandatory reporting of risk, some stakeholders were unclear about who they would share information with and for what purpose.
Data collection and sharing agencies do not have integrated systems for
collecting, storing and sharing data to allow service planning. As one stakeholder noted: communities cant act in response to children that they dont know.
Capacity high turnover and vacancy rates make it hard to maintain momentum where effective relationships are established. This reflects the experience of several stakeholders that effective relationships are often based on particular personalities and they die off when those personalities move on. One stakeholder described this as heroic examples of collaboration, strongly associated with passionate leadership.
In addition, several stakeholders reported that siloed funding is also a critical barrier to effective collaboration between services this is discussed further in Section 6.4. Several stakeholders also reported very positively about interagency relationships in their jurisdiction. Mechanisms that were identified as very effective in building interagency relationships were: developing shared outcomes allows common objectives and shared responsibility clarifying roles, responsibilities and accountabilities provides system members with a solid basis for their relationships with other members protocols for information sharing clear protocols establish policy and procedure to facilitate information sharing liaison officers and joint training build shared understanding and respect legislation can provide a compulsion to collaborate specialist case management processes/programs provide a framework to bring respective providers together co-location physical proximity can encourage informal communication and build respect between professionals.
The recent Wood Inquiry recommended that a unit be established in key agencies that work with children and families (for example, area health services, the Department of Educations and Training, the NSW Police Force etc). This unit would have two functions: 44 to receive reports of risk of significant harm from staff within their agency and take appropriate action to provide a mechanism for interagency communication and collaboration.
Workers in these units would be child protection trained and meet regularly with their counterparts in other agencies to share information and identify any problems or emerging trends in interagency collaboration (Wood 2008). This model is an extension of a liaison officer model, which many stakeholders reported had been useful in their jurisdictions. Notably, stakeholders views were contained to the relationships between state government agencies, rather than between state and national agencies. This reflects that although the Australian Government currently delivers services within the system for protecting children, mechanisms for collaboration do not generally extend beyond a state or territory boundary.
Consultation services are planned by government without consultation with NGOs. NGOs have the operational know-how and are well connected to the community and consider they have much to offer in terms of input. NGOs also consider they should be consulted on processes that will affect their operations such as intake processes. The NSW Council of Social Services submission to the Commission of Inquiry into Child Protection Services in NSW (the Wood Inquiry) also reflected these concerns NGOs feel their input is not sought by Government and when it is, is ignored or not considered relevant (NCOSS 2008). Culture positive relationships require trust and respect. NGOs in some states
consider that there is not a culture of collaboration between NGOs and government in the child protection system:
Collaboration and coordination works best when there is a clear understanding of each others roles and responsibilities and a level of trust that people will do their job properly and well. It requires sharing of information and a willingness to work constructively to overcome problems. There is, however, amongst NGOs a perception that DOCS does not take criticism well and is often more defensive rather than open to suggestions constructively made. NCOSS 2008, p. 7
45
Government stakeholders did not generally report relationships with NGOs as an issue; rather the capacity of the NGO sector was raised in a number of jurisdictions.
These professional groups operate with quite distinct professional values and practice philosophies embedded in their training. GPs in particular also work with a high level of autonomy from government and are relatively isolated from other groups outside the medical profession. For these reasons, building relationships between previously unconnected (or poorly connected) professional groups presents a challenge to the change goal. The issues associated with interagency relationships also apply to inter-professional relationships. Stakeholders suggested a multidisciplinary approach was required for training of all professionals that work with vulnerable families. This training should be embedded in university training and include establishing a shared understanding about appropriate pathways for vulnerable families at risk of child abuse and neglect.
6.4
Economic resources
Fundamental systems change to implement a preventive model for protecting children has implications for economic resources and funding. There was a consensus among stakeholders that a preventive model for protecting children required more resources for primary and secondary prevention. Most jurisdictions considered that additional funding for secondary prevention was required to increase the coverage of secondary prevention programs. Jurisdictions consistently reported that: there are inadequate places available in family support services which has resulted in waiting lists, strict eligibility criteria or limited referral pathways. For example, several stakeholders reported that the only way to access family support services was by referral through child protection agencies family support services are restricted in the intensity of service they can provide due to resource constraints universal services do not have the resources to provide more intensive support to vulnerable families.
46
This is consistent with the experience in Victoria, where change involved a significant new investment in the family support sector (from around $20 million to $600 million). Several Victorian stakeholders reported that the change simply would not have been possible without this investment. In addition, the coverage and capacity of universal services varies across jurisdictions and, in some states, stakeholders reported that universal services need to be bolstered to ensure that access was in fact universal. This includes investment in assertive outreach for the hard to reach, and quality and high intensity services for the most disadvantaged children to narrow the gap with other children. It was also noted that increased access to universal services will mean that more problems are identified in families. This creates an expectation in the community that these problems will be addressed, which also increases demand on targeted services. One stakeholder noted that adult drug and alcohol, and mental health services are particularly overstretched in relation to community need. There was a view among some stakeholders that in the medium to long-term, resources could be reallocated from statutory child protection to primary and secondary prevention as prevention efforts should reduce demand for tertiary services. This would however, follow a period of double-budgeting whereby increased resources are allocated to primary and secondary prevention but the impacts of this investment do not immediately translate into reduced demand for tertiary services. Until demand does ease, a need remains for full funding of tertiary services in addition to the new investment. There was also caution from some stakeholders on this issue. It was noted that behavioural change in parenting behaviour can be generational. Moreover, the broader societal issues associated with child abuse and neglect such as poverty and substance abuse are deeply entrenched and tertiary services will need resourcing for an undefined amount of time. A number of stakeholders also saw reduced demand on tertiary services as an opportunity to enhance service provision to those children who have been subject to abuse and neglect. It was reported that these children have high and complex needs that are not currently being met because tertiary services are overburdened with assessment and screening. This approach would limit the economic resources available for reallocation to primary and secondary prevention. The impact of prevention efforts on demand for tertiary services will reflect the effectiveness of strategies in reducing the incidence of child abuse and neglect. Policy reform is outside the scope of this project, however several stakeholders reported an urgent need for better evidence about what works in preventing child abuse and neglect to assist policy-makers in designing programs and policies that will have the intended effect. Better evidence would also allow governments to reallocate finite resources from things that do not work to things that do, even within the prevention space.
47
Shrinking the size of the tertiary prevention activities relative to primary and secondary prevention could be perceived by some players in the statutory child protection system as a loss. However, this does not reflect the views of stakeholders consulted for this project who were wholly supportive of this goal. That said, child protection agencies generally see a role for their agency in providing secondary prevention services. This role shift would not necessarily result in a net loss for the organisation. This is opposed to the view of some family support NGO stakeholders and commentators that child protection agencies are not an appropriate organisation for providing support to vulnerable families.
48
Chapter 7
System regulations
7.1 Introduction
System members behaviour is regulated through a range of mechanisms to ensure that it aligns with the overall system goal or purpose (Foster-Fishman et al. 2007). These are: system rules formal government or organisational policies, including legislation and accountability arrangements system practices routines, processes and procedures that emerge from formal and informal protocols.
In the context of systems change, existing system regulations can help or hinder change according to how compatible they are with the change goal. Moreover, system regulations may need to change, or new system regulations be introduced, to reflect the change goal. This chapter analyses the system regulations in the current system for protecting children according to three groups of questions: What system rules might hinder or help change? What current processes and practices exacerbate the problem or have made it difficult to resolve issues in the past? What current processes and practices are incompatible with the change goal? What system regulations are not in place but are needed to fully support the change goal?
All the distinct subsystems for protecting children are governed by a myriad of government and organisational policies, and numerous legislative arrangements. There are also a multitude of processes and practices within subsystems that contribute to the goal of protecting children. There is not scope within this report to analyse these policies, legislation and processes and how they conflate, although we recognise this work would be highly valuable. Instead, this project focuses on an analysis of the rules and practices that regulate the behaviour of system members where subsystems currently or potentially intersect, taking a holistic view of the system.
7.2
System rules determined by policies, legislation and accountability arrangements are important as they clarify what is normative and expected, sanctioned and rewarded (Foster-Fishman et al. 2007, p. 208).
Bromfield and Holzer (2008) systematically reviewed the legislative and policy frameworks underpinning practice for protecting children in each jurisdiction. They found a high level of consistency across jurisdictions in the principles embedded in legislation and policy (see Box 7.1 below).
Box 7.1
CONSISTENT PRINCIPLES IN CHILD PROTECTION LEGISLATION AND POLICY The best interests principle whereby the best interests of the child should be central to all decision-making Whole-of-government and community responsibility for child protection Early intervention The participation of children and young people in decision-making Culturally specific responses to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander peoples Diversion from the court system Permanency planning and stability of care After care
These legislative provisions would not hinder systems change and were not noted by any stakeholders as barriers to prevention efforts. In fact, several principles, particularly whole-of-government responsibility for child protection and early intervention explicitly support the change goal. Victorian stakeholders reported that legislation was key to implementing their Child FIRST reforms. The Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 incorporates child protection and community services for children into one Act and the role of secondary family support services are embedded in legislation. Victoria stakeholders reported that this provided assurances to the NGO sector of their role in protecting children. It also delivered a unifying legislative framework for protecting children that went beyond the tertiary system.
Mandatory reporting
One legislative issue that some stakeholders did consider hindered the change goal was mandatory reporting legislation. Mandatory reporting legislation requires that certain specified groups must report suspected cases of child abuse and neglect. The groups that are required to report vary between jurisdictions but all states and territories have some form of mandatory reporting legislation (Higgins et al. 2006). Some stakeholders considered that mandatory reporting exacerbates the problems in the current system of net widening. It was argued that: it significantly contributes to the demand on the tertiary system it overwhelms the statutory system, which is unable to respond appropriately to the notifications it has resulted in responses being targeted to very high risk cases only, with other cases being unattended.
50
a view that legal obligations (and legal sanctions) to report alleged child abuse and neglect contributed to the risk averse culture in the system a perception by some stakeholders that universal providers feel they have done their bit once they have made a mandatory report frustration from some providers that their reports of alleged child abuse and neglect are not being attended to, or feedback on their report is not timely or simply does not happen.
These views are consistent with several of the submissions to the Wood Inquiry (for example, DPC 2008).
Privacy legislation
Many stakeholders also reported that privacy legislation restricted their ability to share information about clients in order to provide integrated services. Several states including South Australia and Victoria have recently changed their privacy legislation which has reportedly improved information sharing. Information sharing provisions in legislation are being considered in detail by the Council of Australian Governments. Other stakeholders reported that privacy legislation was less of a barrier than it was perceived to be and that professional boundaries were responsible for the poor information sharing between services. In addition, one stakeholder considered that providers were hiding behind privacy legislation to manage their risk.
Several stakeholders noted that government funding and accountability arrangements are barriers to developing an integrated system for preventing child abuse and neglect. The reported barriers are two-fold: current agency funding and accountabilities are siloed and restrict the incentives for agencies to collaborate on integrated services for vulnerable client groups with complex needs that run across several agencies competitive purchaser and provider arrangements for contracting service providers encourage siloed service delivery.
51
Government agencies
Traditional government accountabilities operate in a vertical approach, with a single, clear line of accountability to the Minister. This has resulted in siloed departments where funding is ring-fenced by departmental responsibility. Performance-based budgeting that allocates funds according to outcomes and then according to outputs has been widely introduced by Australian Governments. These accountability arrangements reflect reforms to public sector management to deliver increased cost effectiveness. In fact, current accountability arrangements are designed with the express intent to maintain clear distinctions between responsibilities so that organisations and managers can be held accountable for outcomes. Stakeholders reported that accountability arrangements are too rigid for effective prevention efforts. The APSC (2007) also questions the appropriateness of current government accountability frameworks in allowing the flexibility required to tackle wicked problems noting the following issues: performance indicators may undermine the responsiveness of complex service delivery as the focus shifts to attaining the indicator (or target) rather than delivering the service program outcomes for dealing with wicked problems may not be evident for many years which makes measuring performance and evaluations for traditional funding cycles difficult specification of outputs and outcomes may be difficult when the nature of the wicked problem is not always clear (for example, causal pathways to child abuse and neglect are by no means established).
Stakeholders also noted that siloed funding and accountability arrangements raise a number of challenges for collaborative prevention efforts: Each department has defined performance measures against which it is measured and to which incentives are tied. Departments are generally unwilling to contribute resources to activities that do not relate to these measures. Moreover, agencies may actually have performance measures or targets that are inconsistent with the goals of another potential collaborating agency. Agency accountability arrangements encourage services to deliver very narrowly within their mandate only, and contribute to the risk aversion discussed in Chapter 6. One stakeholder noted that child death reviews have highlighted the dramatic impacts of agencies only attending to their particular responsibility. Cross-agency funding bids are not easily accommodated within traditional budgeting structures, which makes them difficult. Successful prevention efforts can mean significant costs falling on one budget while the benefits accrue to another. Reallocations of funding are fiercely contested as agencies perceive a risk to their own mandates.
52
In addition, stakeholders reported that accountability arrangements within organisations both incentives and sanctions need to be restructured to encourage collaboration. This could involve building a requirement to collaborate into agency chief executive officers performance agreements, or prioritisation of cross-agency funding bids by decision-makers in budget processes (WA Commissioner for Children and Young People 2008). The Wood Inquiry also recommended that agency CEOs, and the Director-General, Deputy DirectorGenerals and each Regional Director of DoCS should have measurable provisions in their performance agreements relating to interagency collaboration on child protection (Wood 2008).
Service providers
Stakeholders also reported that current purchaser-provider funding and associated accountability arrangements for contracted services are counterproductive to a collaborative prevention model. They argued that they result in siloed service delivery as services are generally funded on a single-input basis. Service providers are funded to deliver a certain service to a certain client group within a certain domain (Scott 2005). The implication of this funding approach is that an adult service delivering to a parent (for example, mental health) will only deliver narrowly within their particular mandate, and has no accountability (or incentive) to address the needs of the child or family. In addition, many stakeholders considered that competitive tendering between NGOs for funding was in its essence anti-collaborative. Competitive tendering provides a disincentive for services to: work together to develop programs and initiatives share knowledge and information work with more complex (and expensive) clients address a clients needs holistically.
Finally, stakeholders noted that organisations (both government and NGOs) seek to conserve their own resources for service delivery within their particular mandate, and this may result in gate-keeping to resist referral of cases that are resourceintensive. Scott (2005, p. 136) notes that two key gate-keeping strategies used by organisations to manage scarce resources are: developing eligibility criteria that exclude certain categories of clients, or requires clients to meet criteria that is difficult in their circumstances requiring clients to make their own appointments for services when the client is likely to require an outreach model of delivery to assist them to access the service.
Several stakeholders reported that the collaborative contracting model used in Victoria increased collaboration by overcoming many of the issues reported above. It also strengthened the capacity of the sector as smaller NGOs that were not viable service providers in their own right were able to partner with larger NGOs to form consortiums. Several other jurisdictions reported that they were considering collaborative tendering models.
53
The Victorian model also involves performance-based contracting with service providers. In this model, the strategic framework for the reforms sets out the outcomes to be achieved, but particular processes are not prescribed and there are no guidelines for services. This model was developed in partnership with the community sector and reflects a devolved accountability model. It is supported by performance standards embedded in legislation for community services to assure quality.
7.3
Supporting system rules in regulating the behaviours of system members are system practices routines, processes and procedures that have emerged as a result of formal and informal protocols. Three interconnected system practices that were consistently raised by stakeholders as inhibiting an effective and integrated preventive approach to protecting children were processes for intake, referral and assessment. These are each discussed below.
The needs of many of these families could be met by a more appropriate response at a lower level of intervention, and as such many reports of alleged child abuse and neglect (around 80 per cent) are unsubstantiated. A large proportion of these are referred to secondary services (Bromfield and Holzer 2008). The impact of these pathways is that in some jurisdictions the primary way for families to access support services is through the tertiary system. Stakeholders provided a range of explanations for the current referral pathways: There are no or few institutionalised referral processes from universal to secondary family support (particularly intensive family support) so referrals of this kind rely on relationships between services and professionals. Some universal providers and/or professional groups may not be aware of the range of targeted services available in the community. Providers also reported that there are inadequate services available so referral options are limited. Although services are available for self-referral, families may not be aware of the range of supports available entry points are not visible in the community. In addition, parents may be concerned about engaging with services due to concerns that they will come under surveillance for child protection, and services may also be seen as stigmatising. The eligibility criteria for some support services specifically stipulate that the families must be involved with child protection, or referred from child protection.
54
Family support services are under resourced and places are limited. Priority is given to the most complex cases, which are generally referred from child protection.
Bromfield and Holzer (2008, p. 57) suggest that options for expanding referral pathways to support a prevention focus are needed. These are: promoting and enhancing referral pathways down from and between tertiary services promoting and enhancing referral pathways directly into local secondary services for community members and professionals creating a single visible entry-point where families are assessed and referred to the most appropriate service response (for example, primary/secondary family services or tertiary child protection services).
In addition to these options, some stakeholders suggested that a truly integrated system for prevention would involve no wrong door. This means that a family would be provided with appropriate support for their particular needs regardless of where they entered the system. This does not necessarily require full service integration or co-location for all services to be able to address all needs but rather that services would need to be adequately linked. For example, a drug and alcohol service does not need to be able to provide family support services but should be able to actively link their clients with family support beyond simply providing information about services available. All jurisdictions have introduced some form of differential response in their tertiary intake services that provides a formal pathway for provisions of support rather than investigation where cases do not meet the threshold for a statutory intervention (Bromfield and Holzer 2008). These are also known as multiple track and alternative responses. Stakeholders reported that these approaches showed promise for providing more appropriate support. There is also strong support for differential responses in the international literature as a commonsense approach for child welfare that has been evaluated in several places. For example, evaluations in the US have found that: children are at least as safe in differential response pathways as traditional investigation pathways, with some evidence of lower levels of re-notifications for similar cases on the assessment track rather than investigation track differential responses are largely supported by parents, child welfare staff and community agencies with parents are more likely to engage (Schene 2005).
Differential response approaches implemented in Australia and overseas generally rest within child protection intake processes, rather than diverting cases from the child protection system altogether (Schene 2005). This approach, although very positive, is somewhat limited. Involvement with the child protection system at any level can be stigmatising for families, even if the family is referred for support rather than investigated. In addition, stakeholders suggested that many of these referrals do not translate into a family receiving services for a number of reasons. It was reported that: child protection workers do not have the capacity to follow-up on referrals sufficient family support services of adequate intensity are not readily available 55
families are not willing to engage voluntarily with services provided by the child protection agency service networks are not working collaboratively.
In this context, problems may escalate only to result in another notification at some stage creating a revolving door of families repeatedly bumping up against the system. An additional limitation on the effectiveness of differential response processes is that the reliability of risk assessment tools in child protection is poor so it is inherently difficult to identify those in need opposed to those at risk (Gillingham 2000). Risk assessment tools have been found to produce a significant number of false negatives (failing to appropriately classify those children who are actually at risk) and false positives (investigating those families where the child is not at risk of harm). In fact, Gillingham concludes that due to unreliable tools and the way they are used:
the application of risk assessment ... is potentially a flawed process that may not live up to the promise that risk to the safety and wellbeing of children can be predicted and managed. Gillingham 2000, p. 95
Victorian reforms have combined differential response with community-based intake, and many stakeholders supported this as a promising intake and referral model. Victoria has established two separate but interrelated referral pathways into family services. First, the traditional pathway through child protection remains. Second, a new pathway through Child FIRST in local areas has been established. This reflects the concept that both the child protection agency and the community sector (through community-based intake) are partners in prevention and early intervention for children and families in Victoria. Child FIRST receives referrals about families where a childs wellbeing is thought to be affected by severe family stress and where there are concerns about the families resilience under such stresses. It can refer families to various services and supports, although family involvement is voluntary. Child FIRST workers have an obligation to refer children to child protection where there is concern for a childs safety. The twin pathways are shown in Figure 7.1.
56
Figure 7.1
Source: Callister, G 2005, Presentation at the launch of Protecting Children the next steps and the exposure draft of the Childrens Bill, 3 August 2005.
The recent Wood Inquiry in NSW also proposes a new differential response that allows a unit within the major reporting organisations to determine if a report poses significant harm. If they consider it does not, the unit can refer the family to a Regional Intake and Referral Service run by an NGO. This model reflects many of the system features of the Victorian model. Stakeholders considered that a community-based intake model addresses many of the issues discussed above: it provides a non-stigmatising visible entry point that the community and providers can refer families to without concerns about unnecessarily subjecting a family to a statutory intervention it allows families that are in need but not at risk of harming children to access supports to prevent issues from escalating by actively connecting them with services it relieves the tertiary system of much of the burden of initial assessment which allows it to focus on the high-risk cases it builds trust in families that need support, with the option of referral where professionals judge there is a risk it provides assurance that youve done all you can with a family before they get to the tertiary system. One stakeholder considered this would support permanent placements for those children that are removed as the family's ability to change or recover has already been tested.